This petition was disposed of by treating it as covered by the directions in connected Writ Petition No. 5737 of 2014, which mandated the determination of solatium and interest claims under the Land Acquisition Act and National Highways Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.11628of2014(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 26.08.2014
Phuman Singh
…..Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,ACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present: Mr. Ritresh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):
Notice of motion.
Ms. Jarnail Kaur Dhaliwal, Advocate for accepts notice
for Union of India while Mr. Sunil Sahore, Advocate, puts in
appearance on behalf of National Highways Authority of India.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that this
petition is covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No.5737
of 2014 titled as Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and othersand
connected matters disposed of on 26.3.2014 with the following
directions:-
“9] The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of
with a direction to respondent No.3 that let these
petitions be treated as applications on behalf of the
petitioners under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 read with National Highways
Act, 1956 and their claim regarding grant of solatium
and interest be determined within a period of three
Chand Parkash 2014.08.26 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-11628-2014
- 2 -
months from the date of receiving a certified copy of
this order. The amount found due shall then be
released by respondent Nos.1 & 2 within a period of
one month thereafter.”
This petition also stands disposed of in terms of
the directions passed in CWP No.5737 of 2014.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
26.08.2014 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
parkash*JUDGE
Chand Parkash 2014.08.26 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pawan Kumar vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶16
CWP No.5737 of 2014 titled as Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Phuman Singh
Union of India
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court